Thank you. This is expressed so clearly. I am both a Christian and a liberal. I do believe my faith is a positive good and better than other belief systems, and also respect the rights of others to disagree with this assertion.
Though women were made full equal members of our Republic the day it was formed, and they became fellow republican-democrats with men 11 years, 11 months, & 7 days later when our Constitution was ratified (June 21, 1788), representation among our public servants in Government has not kept with the times. This is how we change that:
I agree with your assertion of Christianity's merits which require no explication from me.
And it is highly commendable for Hellen; as a devoted liberal, to raise these solemn and delicate points as doing so goes to the core of the society that she, and many others wish to uphold. It is fair for her to come right out and openly and honestly wish for Muslims to forsake what they believe and become an atheist like her. But this, of course, is where she is apt to lose them. It is not, after all, unreasonable for Sarah to refuse to become an apostate.
But what other readers might want to come to terms with is this: The holy Quran is a book that for devout Muslims is eternal and uncreated. Thus, every word is valid for all time. Its most literal reading would make slavery (sexual or otherwise) as admissible today as it was in the days of Mohamed. By extension, Allah, through the prophet instructs the faithful to convert or kill the cursed infidel for the ultimate implantation and triumph of sharīʿah law worldwide.
And that appears to be where quiet liberal tolerance has reached its natural limit. Or put another way, contemporary liberalism is gradually becoming a suicide pack. Inevitable, no. But honesty such as Helen's is alarmingly sparse.
Sarah and trans activists seem to be drawing from the same playbook: my refusal to accept their beliefs gets reinterpreted as genocide.
I had a student in class say: “I am ok with people identifying as they please, but not ok with being forced to affirm their beliefs.” I thought this was a a nuanced and tolerant position for a young Christian male college student to embrace — and brave of him for uttering it. Unfortunately, a trans student stormed out of class in tears and one of his friends complained to me about how intolerant these “Christian types” are. The next day, said trans student came to my office to complained that I had not shown care for his feeling in the current “genocidal” environment we are leaving under in the US 🤡🤡
That doesn’t make any sense and the two paragraphs don’t match. The marketplace of ideas would protect people using the terms “homophobia” and “transphobia” and people criticising those terms and give them space to argue about it. It would only make any terms and ideas disappear if there was an overwhelming consensus that the subject was settled and they were not needed.
Yale can certainly be criticised for not being liberal and not allowing a wide range of ideas and it has been so criticised. Anybody saying it is both liberal and stifling ideas is just confused about what liberalism means.
My point is that you cannot discuss whether these terms (e.g. homophobia, transphobia) are meaningful or the means to end conversation and cast anyone of a different viewpoint in the role of a hateful bigoted rube.
Where I live is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don’t even personally know any conservatives (I am apolitical). From my vantage point, this community of “liberals” is stifling. At least the religious enjoy discussing such matters—even if I part company with them in how they reason on such matters.
Your point is wrong. You absolutely can cast people of a different viewpoint as hateful bigoted rubes in a liberal society. That’s exactly what the marketplace of ideas is for. The critique of all by all. There is no right to have your feelings protected from other people thinking your ideas are bad or morally abhorrent. It is when people try to shut down certain ideas or forbid criticism of certain ideas that it becomes illiberal.
You are still using ‘liberal’ to mean ‘left’ even when describing censorship which is illiberal. This likely means you are American? I am not doing this. I am using it in the original philosophical sense where “liberal” is not the opposite of “conservative” but of “authoritarian”. Most conservatives are also liberal in this sense. There is no substitute word for ‘liberal’ in the philosophical sense that I use it, but possibly the closest in a US context is “cultural libertarian.”
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not objecting to harsh criticism or being called names - you’re absolutely right that’s part of free discourse. My concern is specifically about refusing to have the conversation at all - when terms like ‘homophobia’ or ‘transphobia’ are used not as part of an argument, but as a way to delegitimize the conversation itself and block all engagement rendering it impossible.
Well, if you’re still talking about the university not allowing people who want to discuss this to do so, you are right because this is denial of freedom of speech. Otherwise, people can refuse to have whatever discussions they want. E.g., if someone turns up on my doorstep and asks me if I want to hear the good news about Jesus, I retain the right to say “No.”
Let me give you some examples so you can understand what I’m talking about.
A client of mine asked who I voted for. I informed him that I’m apolitical and don’t vote. He went on to excoriate me saying that it’s people like me who are responsible for someone like Donald Trump getting elected. When I attempted to explain my ethical issues with government, he cut me off mid sentence and said he refused to give me a hearing since my behavior is anti-civilization. Keep in mind that this guy is the second highest paid person at Yale University.
On another occasion a lawyer friend said in passing that she can’t believe anyone could view the pre-born as meriting protection based on the principle of bodily autonomy. I tried to simply rehearse how people on the other side of the aisle would construe such a principle by prefacing my statement by saying “the pro-lifers likely reason that…”—and was abruptly interrupted and told that if I uttered another word she would be parting company with me.
On still another occasion a doctor client of mine who works in academia in medical ethics, shared how it is unfathomable to him how people can claim that there are only two genders. I asked how he, as a doctor whose profession is based in the biological sciences, makes sense of their being more than two genders. He got upset and said he refused to have the conversation.
This is a common mentality of “liberals” here in America.
Bill Maher—a comedian, political commentator and defender of classic liberalism—testifies to the fact that this mentality constitutes the left here in America. He reports that every conservative politician he invites on the show is more than happy to show up and debate ideas, whereas he cannot for the life of him get Hillary Clinton & Co. to appear on his show since they know he won’t throw them softball questions.
So, I have no problem with people criticizing ideas harshly (calling others bigoted, stupid, immoral) - this IS part of liberalism’s “marketplace of ideas.” But refusing to engage at all (shutting down the conversation, declaring certain questions off-limits) - this is NOT liberal. When people use terms like ‘homophobia’ or ‘transphobia’ as conversation-stoppers - as ways to say ‘we’re not even discussing this’ - that is illiberal. And where I live, too many exchanges of the kind above can cost you your livelihood if word gets out.
I think you’re misunderstanding me by thinking that I’m complaining about being criticized, when I’m actually complaining about engagement being blocked. You’re right that calling someone’s ideas morally abhorrent is perfectly liberal. But that’s not what I’m describing. I’m describing when the conversation is refused - when asking certain questions or challenging certain frameworks is treated as itself disqualifying you from discourse. That’s not ‘critique of all by all’ - that’s blocking critique.
How is refusing to engage with someone’s arguments because of what they’re questioning consistent with liberalism?
Oh! I am the one not making sense! Sorry, @TunaFortuna! I’m not sure how that reply of mine ended up on your comment! It was intended to be a response to someone saying that Yale was liberal but did not allow freedom of speech! Your comment made perfect sense!
If the marketplace of ideas were truly open, there would be no need for terms like “homophobia,” “transphobia,” and the like. Such labels function to constrain the Overton Window by preemptively determining which views are considered fit for open debate. This is where liberalism is rightly accused of hypocrisy.
I live a stone’s throw from Yale University—a putative bastion of liberalism. Yet the range of what is deemed acceptable to discuss here is remarkably narrow, and people are easily offended. One must constantly walk on eggshells, carefully steering clear of verboten topics. The atmosphere is stifling—and people sound like clones of each other.
Sarah also conveniently lives in America where her equal rights as a woman are protected….not in any number of the 54 Muslim majority nations where she would be considered property. So it’s easy to say all the things she says while not actually being subjected to the regressive laws she proscribes for the rest of us.
That was a very interesting exchange you had with Sarah, Helen. Thanks for sharing it! It is a bit challenging to see the path forward through these messy theological disputes that are breaking out all over the 'western world', but I found your commitment to your liberal principles quite inspiring.
The notion that moderate Muslims can/ are likely to prevail is most improbable. Most moderates, Muslim or otherwise, do what they are told. And the west is phobic when it comes to telling ethnic minorities what to do, and so has had to dress the whole thing as multi culturalism - with any failures blamed on the racism/ Islamophobia of the indigenous. It’s a mess
Excellent: The first is a failure to distinguish between respect for freedom of belief and respect for all beliefs. Liberalism requires the former, not the latter. Respecting someone’s right to believe something does not entail believing that their beliefs are good, true, or harmless. That position is not liberalism but relativism.
This reminds me of a bizarre experience a number of years ago. I was carrying a handmade sign I'd made for a demonstration saying, "Kill violent memes, not people," and someone called it "imperialistic." There wasn't any reasoning with her.
Such a good essay. I love how you dance backnforth with the specifics of the Sarah Event and very broad and general principles. My single favorite sections:
"This should make it obvious that I am consciously arguing for people to abandon illiberal beliefs and adopt liberal ones. This is not an accidental side-effect of some other project. It is the project."
AND
"The first is a failure to distinguish between respect for freedom of belief and respect for all beliefs. Liberalism requires the former, not the latter. Respecting someone’s right to believe something does not entail believing that their beliefs are good, true, or harmless. That position is not liberalism but relativism."
AND
"As indicated above, a liberal is someone who holds two positions in their head at the same time:
1. These ideas are bad.
2. People must be free to hold and express them."
As an academic, I can tell you that many people with PhDs seem to have difficulty recognizing that others can and do hold both those positions in their heads at the same time. And at least some substantial minority do actually endorse this:
"The assumption is that if you think an idea is dangerous, the intention to suppress it by force follows naturally." IDK about "force" per se in the sense of actual physical violence, but certainly through exercises of power that can manifest as punishment (e.g., getting fired, getting papers retracted) and ostracism, yes indeedy.
I think it is important to keep in mind that the Koran is full of sourates that explicitly say that kuffar (polytheist, Christian , jews and unbielivers) will always try to humiliate or subjugate muslims, and that muslims will get their revenge.
So for many Muslims , saying that they are discriminated or humiliated by non-muslims is an act of faith, whatever their real situation is. That is why the debate on Islamophobia is so complicated.
I can try, but I'm not an expert, and you could find surates that moderates what will follow. So my previous statement may be to harsh. But here are example , that some Muslims , that are not expert as well, may interpret literally.
2:212 : The life of this world has been made appealing to the disbelievers, and they mock the believers.
2:217 : And they will not stop fighting you until they turn you away from your faith—if they can.
2:120 : Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you, until you follow their faith. Say, “Allah’s guidance is the only ˹true˺ guidance.”
3:118 : O believers! Do not associate closely with others [non muslims] who would not miss a chance to harm you. Their only desire is to see you suffer. Their prejudice has become evident from what they say—and what their hearts hide is far worse. (it is after talking about disbelievers and saying about them "The good they do in this worldly life is like the harvest of an evil people struck by a bitter wind, destroying it ˹completely˺. " so even when they do good, it is bad !
4:101 : Indeed, the disbelievers are your sworn enemies.
5:51 : O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians—they are guardians of each other.1 Whoever does so will be counted as one of them.
8:36 : Surely the disbelievers spend their wealth to hinder others from the Path of Allah. They will continue to spend to the point of regret. Then they will be defeated and the disbelievers will be driven into Hell
8:32 : They [the disbelievers ] wish to extinguish Allah’s light1 with their mouths
9:8 : If they [the polytheists] were to have the upper hand over you, they would have no respect for kinship or treaty. They only flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts are in denial, and most of them are rebellious.
60:2 : If they [the disbelievers ] gain the upper hand over you, they would be your ˹open˺ enemies, unleashing their hands and tongues to harm you, and wishing that you would abandon faith.
I end there, I hope it clarify what I meant. Again, I read it without big knowledge, and I focused on surates that go along my statement (so it is biased), but I guess it is the same for many muslims.
You can read the koran, and you will find that generally , the tone is that disbelievers are intrinsically hostile to Muslim , because if they were not hostile , they would follow Allah's path.
On a side note, Helen, damn you ;) I just finished up a similar article about Islam's problems and now i have to rewrite it because it'll sound like I copied you. Oh well. I can use this as an example of how desperately this little lady needs to clean up her head.
If she wasn't Muslim she'd be some other dangerous PITA - Christian, Socialist, woke, antiracist.
Yes, Sarah's position, though magnified by religious conviction, is similar to folks with whom I've debated who respond to my disagreement/criticism with "I have a right to my opinion!"
With hateful comments like brain dead Americans (given ur English lol) and telling you to burn in hell, you’re giving Sarah way to much credit. The practice of Islam in Iran in the 1970s indeed shows the practice of Islam can be more liberal and it’s people thrive.
As I watched your real-time back-and-forth with Sarah, I kept thinking of advice my college mentor once gave me. I was the editor an alternative paper on campus, and if he caught me calmly debating someone with fundamentally rigid views, he’d say: “Never get into a pissing contest with a goat. Even if you win, you still walk away smelling like piss.”
But in this case, the exchange did something else entirely: it drew out the insight and thoughtfulness that made this post so good.
Thank you. This is expressed so clearly. I am both a Christian and a liberal. I do believe my faith is a positive good and better than other belief systems, and also respect the rights of others to disagree with this assertion.
Excellent! This is what we need!
Though women were made full equal members of our Republic the day it was formed, and they became fellow republican-democrats with men 11 years, 11 months, & 7 days later when our Constitution was ratified (June 21, 1788), representation among our public servants in Government has not kept with the times. This is how we change that:
https://open.substack.com/pub/republia/p/for-the-preservation-of-freedom-and?r=4ucf6d&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
I agree with your assertion of Christianity's merits which require no explication from me.
And it is highly commendable for Hellen; as a devoted liberal, to raise these solemn and delicate points as doing so goes to the core of the society that she, and many others wish to uphold. It is fair for her to come right out and openly and honestly wish for Muslims to forsake what they believe and become an atheist like her. But this, of course, is where she is apt to lose them. It is not, after all, unreasonable for Sarah to refuse to become an apostate.
But what other readers might want to come to terms with is this: The holy Quran is a book that for devout Muslims is eternal and uncreated. Thus, every word is valid for all time. Its most literal reading would make slavery (sexual or otherwise) as admissible today as it was in the days of Mohamed. By extension, Allah, through the prophet instructs the faithful to convert or kill the cursed infidel for the ultimate implantation and triumph of sharīʿah law worldwide.
And that appears to be where quiet liberal tolerance has reached its natural limit. Or put another way, contemporary liberalism is gradually becoming a suicide pack. Inevitable, no. But honesty such as Helen's is alarmingly sparse.
Sarah and trans activists seem to be drawing from the same playbook: my refusal to accept their beliefs gets reinterpreted as genocide.
I had a student in class say: “I am ok with people identifying as they please, but not ok with being forced to affirm their beliefs.” I thought this was a a nuanced and tolerant position for a young Christian male college student to embrace — and brave of him for uttering it. Unfortunately, a trans student stormed out of class in tears and one of his friends complained to me about how intolerant these “Christian types” are. The next day, said trans student came to my office to complained that I had not shown care for his feeling in the current “genocidal” environment we are leaving under in the US 🤡🤡
That doesn’t make any sense and the two paragraphs don’t match. The marketplace of ideas would protect people using the terms “homophobia” and “transphobia” and people criticising those terms and give them space to argue about it. It would only make any terms and ideas disappear if there was an overwhelming consensus that the subject was settled and they were not needed.
Yale can certainly be criticised for not being liberal and not allowing a wide range of ideas and it has been so criticised. Anybody saying it is both liberal and stifling ideas is just confused about what liberalism means.
My point is that you cannot discuss whether these terms (e.g. homophobia, transphobia) are meaningful or the means to end conversation and cast anyone of a different viewpoint in the role of a hateful bigoted rube.
Where I live is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don’t even personally know any conservatives (I am apolitical). From my vantage point, this community of “liberals” is stifling. At least the religious enjoy discussing such matters—even if I part company with them in how they reason on such matters.
Your point is wrong. You absolutely can cast people of a different viewpoint as hateful bigoted rubes in a liberal society. That’s exactly what the marketplace of ideas is for. The critique of all by all. There is no right to have your feelings protected from other people thinking your ideas are bad or morally abhorrent. It is when people try to shut down certain ideas or forbid criticism of certain ideas that it becomes illiberal.
You are still using ‘liberal’ to mean ‘left’ even when describing censorship which is illiberal. This likely means you are American? I am not doing this. I am using it in the original philosophical sense where “liberal” is not the opposite of “conservative” but of “authoritarian”. Most conservatives are also liberal in this sense. There is no substitute word for ‘liberal’ in the philosophical sense that I use it, but possibly the closest in a US context is “cultural libertarian.”
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not objecting to harsh criticism or being called names - you’re absolutely right that’s part of free discourse. My concern is specifically about refusing to have the conversation at all - when terms like ‘homophobia’ or ‘transphobia’ are used not as part of an argument, but as a way to delegitimize the conversation itself and block all engagement rendering it impossible.
I’m distinguishing between:
∙ Calling someone’s ideas bigoted (fine - that’s critique)
∙ Refusing to discuss whether the framework itself is valid because doing so marks you as beyond the pale (this is what I’m calling illiberal).
Well, if you’re still talking about the university not allowing people who want to discuss this to do so, you are right because this is denial of freedom of speech. Otherwise, people can refuse to have whatever discussions they want. E.g., if someone turns up on my doorstep and asks me if I want to hear the good news about Jesus, I retain the right to say “No.”
Hi Helen,
Let me give you some examples so you can understand what I’m talking about.
A client of mine asked who I voted for. I informed him that I’m apolitical and don’t vote. He went on to excoriate me saying that it’s people like me who are responsible for someone like Donald Trump getting elected. When I attempted to explain my ethical issues with government, he cut me off mid sentence and said he refused to give me a hearing since my behavior is anti-civilization. Keep in mind that this guy is the second highest paid person at Yale University.
On another occasion a lawyer friend said in passing that she can’t believe anyone could view the pre-born as meriting protection based on the principle of bodily autonomy. I tried to simply rehearse how people on the other side of the aisle would construe such a principle by prefacing my statement by saying “the pro-lifers likely reason that…”—and was abruptly interrupted and told that if I uttered another word she would be parting company with me.
On still another occasion a doctor client of mine who works in academia in medical ethics, shared how it is unfathomable to him how people can claim that there are only two genders. I asked how he, as a doctor whose profession is based in the biological sciences, makes sense of their being more than two genders. He got upset and said he refused to have the conversation.
This is a common mentality of “liberals” here in America.
Bill Maher—a comedian, political commentator and defender of classic liberalism—testifies to the fact that this mentality constitutes the left here in America. He reports that every conservative politician he invites on the show is more than happy to show up and debate ideas, whereas he cannot for the life of him get Hillary Clinton & Co. to appear on his show since they know he won’t throw them softball questions.
So, I have no problem with people criticizing ideas harshly (calling others bigoted, stupid, immoral) - this IS part of liberalism’s “marketplace of ideas.” But refusing to engage at all (shutting down the conversation, declaring certain questions off-limits) - this is NOT liberal. When people use terms like ‘homophobia’ or ‘transphobia’ as conversation-stoppers - as ways to say ‘we’re not even discussing this’ - that is illiberal. And where I live, too many exchanges of the kind above can cost you your livelihood if word gets out.
I think you’re misunderstanding me by thinking that I’m complaining about being criticized, when I’m actually complaining about engagement being blocked. You’re right that calling someone’s ideas morally abhorrent is perfectly liberal. But that’s not what I’m describing. I’m describing when the conversation is refused - when asking certain questions or challenging certain frameworks is treated as itself disqualifying you from discourse. That’s not ‘critique of all by all’ - that’s blocking critique.
How is refusing to engage with someone’s arguments because of what they’re questioning consistent with liberalism?
James
It’s a real problem that in the US we also use the word liberal as a synonym for progressive. That might be where the confusion here is stemming from.
Yes!
Oh! I am the one not making sense! Sorry, @TunaFortuna! I’m not sure how that reply of mine ended up on your comment! It was intended to be a response to someone saying that Yale was liberal but did not allow freedom of speech! Your comment made perfect sense!
If the marketplace of ideas were truly open, there would be no need for terms like “homophobia,” “transphobia,” and the like. Such labels function to constrain the Overton Window by preemptively determining which views are considered fit for open debate. This is where liberalism is rightly accused of hypocrisy.
I live a stone’s throw from Yale University—a putative bastion of liberalism. Yet the range of what is deemed acceptable to discuss here is remarkably narrow, and people are easily offended. One must constantly walk on eggshells, carefully steering clear of verboten topics. The atmosphere is stifling—and people sound like clones of each other.
I left this reply in the wrong place.
https://substack.com/@helenpluckrose/note/c-193887993?r=1nm3qt&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
And people wonder how anyone can vote MAGA? There’s much more in common between the MAGA and trans mindset than might appear.
Sarah also conveniently lives in America where her equal rights as a woman are protected….not in any number of the 54 Muslim majority nations where she would be considered property. So it’s easy to say all the things she says while not actually being subjected to the regressive laws she proscribes for the rest of us.
That was a very interesting exchange you had with Sarah, Helen. Thanks for sharing it! It is a bit challenging to see the path forward through these messy theological disputes that are breaking out all over the 'western world', but I found your commitment to your liberal principles quite inspiring.
It is impossible for someone who believes they are speaking for Allah to accept the other side of an argument; any argument.
Why all Theocracies eventually fail or rot out due to corruption. Man cannot be invested with notions of infallibility.
The notion that moderate Muslims can/ are likely to prevail is most improbable. Most moderates, Muslim or otherwise, do what they are told. And the west is phobic when it comes to telling ethnic minorities what to do, and so has had to dress the whole thing as multi culturalism - with any failures blamed on the racism/ Islamophobia of the indigenous. It’s a mess
Excellent: The first is a failure to distinguish between respect for freedom of belief and respect for all beliefs. Liberalism requires the former, not the latter. Respecting someone’s right to believe something does not entail believing that their beliefs are good, true, or harmless. That position is not liberalism but relativism.
This reminds me of a bizarre experience a number of years ago. I was carrying a handmade sign I'd made for a demonstration saying, "Kill violent memes, not people," and someone called it "imperialistic." There wasn't any reasoning with her.
Such a good essay. I love how you dance backnforth with the specifics of the Sarah Event and very broad and general principles. My single favorite sections:
"This should make it obvious that I am consciously arguing for people to abandon illiberal beliefs and adopt liberal ones. This is not an accidental side-effect of some other project. It is the project."
AND
"The first is a failure to distinguish between respect for freedom of belief and respect for all beliefs. Liberalism requires the former, not the latter. Respecting someone’s right to believe something does not entail believing that their beliefs are good, true, or harmless. That position is not liberalism but relativism."
AND
"As indicated above, a liberal is someone who holds two positions in their head at the same time:
1. These ideas are bad.
2. People must be free to hold and express them."
As an academic, I can tell you that many people with PhDs seem to have difficulty recognizing that others can and do hold both those positions in their heads at the same time. And at least some substantial minority do actually endorse this:
"The assumption is that if you think an idea is dangerous, the intention to suppress it by force follows naturally." IDK about "force" per se in the sense of actual physical violence, but certainly through exercises of power that can manifest as punishment (e.g., getting fired, getting papers retracted) and ostracism, yes indeedy.
Lee
Hey!
Thankyou free allows me and others to access your work.
I think it is important to keep in mind that the Koran is full of sourates that explicitly say that kuffar (polytheist, Christian , jews and unbielivers) will always try to humiliate or subjugate muslims, and that muslims will get their revenge.
So for many Muslims , saying that they are discriminated or humiliated by non-muslims is an act of faith, whatever their real situation is. That is why the debate on Islamophobia is so complicated.
Can you say more about this? I haven't read this before.
I can try, but I'm not an expert, and you could find surates that moderates what will follow. So my previous statement may be to harsh. But here are example , that some Muslims , that are not expert as well, may interpret literally.
I used this website as translation source : https://quran.com/al-baqarah
2:212 : The life of this world has been made appealing to the disbelievers, and they mock the believers.
2:217 : And they will not stop fighting you until they turn you away from your faith—if they can.
2:120 : Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you, until you follow their faith. Say, “Allah’s guidance is the only ˹true˺ guidance.”
3:118 : O believers! Do not associate closely with others [non muslims] who would not miss a chance to harm you. Their only desire is to see you suffer. Their prejudice has become evident from what they say—and what their hearts hide is far worse. (it is after talking about disbelievers and saying about them "The good they do in this worldly life is like the harvest of an evil people struck by a bitter wind, destroying it ˹completely˺. " so even when they do good, it is bad !
4:101 : Indeed, the disbelievers are your sworn enemies.
5:51 : O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians—they are guardians of each other.1 Whoever does so will be counted as one of them.
8:36 : Surely the disbelievers spend their wealth to hinder others from the Path of Allah. They will continue to spend to the point of regret. Then they will be defeated and the disbelievers will be driven into Hell
8:32 : They [the disbelievers ] wish to extinguish Allah’s light1 with their mouths
9:8 : If they [the polytheists] were to have the upper hand over you, they would have no respect for kinship or treaty. They only flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts are in denial, and most of them are rebellious.
60:2 : If they [the disbelievers ] gain the upper hand over you, they would be your ˹open˺ enemies, unleashing their hands and tongues to harm you, and wishing that you would abandon faith.
I end there, I hope it clarify what I meant. Again, I read it without big knowledge, and I focused on surates that go along my statement (so it is biased), but I guess it is the same for many muslims.
You can read the koran, and you will find that generally , the tone is that disbelievers are intrinsically hostile to Muslim , because if they were not hostile , they would follow Allah's path.
Ho. Lee. Shit.
On a side note, Helen, damn you ;) I just finished up a similar article about Islam's problems and now i have to rewrite it because it'll sound like I copied you. Oh well. I can use this as an example of how desperately this little lady needs to clean up her head.
If she wasn't Muslim she'd be some other dangerous PITA - Christian, Socialist, woke, antiracist.
Yes, Sarah's position, though magnified by religious conviction, is similar to folks with whom I've debated who respond to my disagreement/criticism with "I have a right to my opinion!"
With hateful comments like brain dead Americans (given ur English lol) and telling you to burn in hell, you’re giving Sarah way to much credit. The practice of Islam in Iran in the 1970s indeed shows the practice of Islam can be more liberal and it’s people thrive.
This is an amazing piece of writing. And allowing Sarah to have the last word: priceless.
As I watched your real-time back-and-forth with Sarah, I kept thinking of advice my college mentor once gave me. I was the editor an alternative paper on campus, and if he caught me calmly debating someone with fundamentally rigid views, he’d say: “Never get into a pissing contest with a goat. Even if you win, you still walk away smelling like piss.”
But in this case, the exchange did something else entirely: it drew out the insight and thoughtfulness that made this post so good.
:)
Nice touch letting Sarah have the "last word" at the end of the piece.